tv C-SPAN2 Weekend CSPAN July 16, 2011 7:00am-8:00am EDT
concerns and it is appropriate we're having this debate involving industry and agencies and congress to identify core principles that should be protected even as we encourage business model and technological innovation. it is why i keep coming back to core principles that can provide guidance even as we make sure we are encouraged by the business model. >> we recognize consumer information is becoming a commodity so we believe we can craft standards which take into account benefits provided to consumers and at the same time providing sections. the core issue is providing transparency and information to consumers so they can exercise choice that use the example of mechanisms that i believe should
be implemented. and intermediate approach can be used to select what advertising they are willing to receive and what information can be collected. advertising would continue but the network doesn't want to receive advertising -- it would not be done. >> just a few seconds. chairman genachowski, in relation to the question congresswoman blackburn asked you may have been referring to the internet as a telecommunications service. i would consider the telecommunications service. is that your intention? i am not sure reviews that phrase. i may have referred to a telecommunications network and it clearly is. but not a telecommunications service. >> the term of issues --
[talking over each other] >> thank you for your answers and i yield back. >> recognize mr. rush for five minute. >> i want to thank julius and the other important people who have put together this hearing and thank all of you for appearing before us today. good to share with us their opinions and conclusions. commissioner ramirez stated that individuals can and do have varying privacy tolerance. they turn on several variables
including -- what that information -- what it represents. and introduced a bill in the last congress, best practices act. which will require entities to obtain consent from consumers for use or disclosure of particularly sensitive information or comprehensive online data collection from all other things to require the ftc -- the fcc to create rulemaking authority to modify the definition of, quote, sensitive information. given how complex the process and all of the things that are
involved and would like to ask each of the witnesses and especially you, commissioner ramirez your opinion over whether such a grant of authority is prudent and would it make for good public policy? >> there is not a position and legislation but i will note to the privacy report issued in december the staff does recommend sensitive information be provided for additional security protection and consumers begin an opportunity to provide consent for the use of that information. if legislation were to be enacted it would be beneficial to have the agency -- rulemaking up 40 to make modifications regards the type of sensitive information that would be
protected. >> less clear and more confusing disclosures about how information is being used and the argument for an popped in requirement. the easy to understand transparent disclosures, the weaker the argument. it is an area where the industry can step up, provide disclosures about how they are using information and what they are collecting that consumers choose that there would be no need to have an opt in or opt out. if the industry doesn't do that and the disclosures are less clear and more confusing we will hear from consumers saying we don't understand this. >> i would like to take your question up just one level because it could be raised about
any number of things. our concern about getting too regulatory in terms of specific prohibitions and the mechanisms to implement them. what is important we can all agree is meaningful consent. none of us can predict today what technology might be available in two or three years by which meaningful consent can be obtained from a consumer and we are quite concerned about incorporating into legislative language will rulemaking that by consoles will take time to conduct their specific approaches to preserve the flexibility for business to innovate we think this is the perfect example where you set the principal and industry working with all the stakeholders and other folks interested in this to divide the rules of behavior that would be engaged in and which can be
changed on a regular basis to accommodate -- >> i want to move on. some consumers may -- taking advantage of including consumers who are put on bonding based on their past behavior which begs the additional question of what is sensitive information. how sensitive are other forms of compulsive disorder information about consumers such as drugs, 6, gambling? how sensitive were those particular areas and other areas to you?
>> i will turn to the recommendations on the privacy report to identify certain categories like health information, financial information, those are would classify as sensitive. >> commissioner? >> i would agree with that. in our legislative proposal on data breach in may we provided a list the administration would believe to be personal sensitive information and what would refer to that. >> i yield back. >> commissioner ramirez 11, understand what it applies to end what it does not. in your opening statement like a good hemingway story that it grabbed me and took me with you. when i go to by my adville for my bad knee, is the protection are just purchased over the
counter to -- integrate that with the data source start getting advertisements for ed ville --advil? >> if you go to a retailer it is only covered things like hospitals or medical providers, retailers would be able to use that information. >> suggested to you more about myself than you care to know, i buy something -- is not protected, over the counter and they can integrate that with other things known about me since i have a rewards card and that can go into this database. >> that can be done. >> what if it is a prescription medication? >> there would be other protections. if one does research on line to certain personal health
information could be part of a profile. compiled digitally. >> i go to the national institutes of health web site regarding medical information. i may look a bit anything at want to so i look up hepatitis. i don't see things on the side bar about hepatitis a is possible to keep that even if i start off going to google and putting and hepatitis a come up with wikipedia or club med. the fact that i put it in to google means they know i'm interested in hepatitis. what about my credit card company? i am purchasing airplane tickets from washington d.c.. does american express or usair or visa integrate that into my profile? >> the agency doesn't have jurisdiction over banks. there are certain state parks that apply to financial information that might be more
strict. there is a difference. >> the other thing in my in box i would get an e-mail from somebody suggesting a have requested information from them and i know i have not. almost a form of fishing accept it is phishing. is this something that is common. that some bank will set you need to update your records because there has been a recent change? some other company that entices me to update my records even though i haven't used that service? >> there are a number of scams we are aware of the personal operators may try to get information from consumers. >> maybe a company -- >> consumers need to be careful.
>> the children's aspect on this, my daughter is 9 and she accepts everything. i am struck -- do you accept unless you are an obsessive compulsive attorney you don't want to read it. is it possible to make you fully aware of this but i am not aware of it because it is somewhere on line 47, paragraph 2. do you follow where i am going? when we ask someone to opt in or opt out, a long contract language, is there a rule that would make these companies say if you agree to certain advertising, understandable and not deep within the contract? does that make sense -- >> not sure if you were --
there were public reports, activities along the lines of the hypothetical in the opening statement actually happening, insurance companies are developing models by which they can assemble information available to them through this aggregation of data we have been discussing as a means of substituting what would be more complicated underwriting analysis so the potential is clearly there. there are reports that these things are happening today. >> are you able to provide evidence or documentation of specific harms? >> we are happy to provide more detail about those. >> as we look at this, before we look additional regulations we looking information. should the federal government be required to show significant consumer harm that exists with additional cost we could be
talking about when it comes to regulation on privacy or legislation that might impose? >> if congress moves forward with legislation, certainly one has to take into account implications for all -- >> have you done any analysis of that? the cost to business? >> we have some comments, we received 450 comments from industry consumers and other stakeholders. we have the bureau of economics in our review and we have recommendation later this year. >> do you have a timeframe later this year when you think that might be? >> we will be more specific. >> can you tell me how much we know about what information internet sites collect about users and what we know about the sharing of that information?
we covered that some at this hearing but can you enlighten us? >> i can't quantify into scope. i can tell you there is a need for principles we are advocating. the need for greater transparency, for companies to take into account privacy protection when they provide services and products to consumers and a greater need -- >> some critics have expressed concern that self-regulatory teams could constitute a barrier to entry directed by more powerful market participant in smaller newer companies. how do we guard against such a result as that? >> there is concern that one has to take into consideration the impact on small and medium businesses. we intend to address the issue in the final report. >> what would be the best alternative to some of
regulation? is that going to work? >> that is an issue you will have to decide on. but if we rely on self regulation i will say it is very important that there be an enforcement element with accountability and the ftc not to play a role in enforcement. >> yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. olson for five minute. >> i would like to welcome the witness and thank you for giving us your expertise and time. first question for commissioner ramirez. december of 2010 there was a preliminary privacy report to open up discussion on consumer privacy issues and in that report the concept of do not track. it has been compared to the national do not call registry managed by the commission but in
reality it is different. do not call was created because people were being bothered by unsolicited telemarketing calls particularly during dinner hours but online advertising is not invasive that wave away telemarketing calls are. consumers ignore ads online when they come up. in my experience none of my friends has slammed the computer on the phone for online advertising but they slammed phones on the floor because of repeated calls from telemarketers so there are many benefits to targeted ads online to give consumers information about products and services and types of advertising has great value to consumers because this advertising has advertised revenue funds with free online content. do you concur that do not track is analysis to the do not part
registry? >> the do not track system would not call for any type of national registry. it won't be implemented necessarily by government. what the agency is advocating we put out a description of various elements that the key feature of it would be universal mechanism to allow the consumers who do have a concern about online information to have greater choice and control over how their data is used. >> is it used now to implement? >> yes. we have a distinguished team at the ftc and the number of companies agree that it is usable. >> my colleagues in mississippi brought up questioning. have you performed any economic analysis of do not track on our businesses? >> we have not. we identified the elements we
think are important but not advocating particular mechanism is. >> do you plan on doing those? >> we will issue final recommendation that an end of the year. >> is that economic impact? >> i can't comment on the details but we understand the impact on business and carefully crafted standards can be adopted. they help restore confidence in the online marketplace and businesses are still recognized that consumer trust is vital. >> i heard from some companies that legislation is needed to create an online privacy framework that is technologically neutral, based on industry self regulation and used exclusively by the ftc and with respect to next -- technological neutrality is it true the ftc and fcc would have jurisdiction on download of video on demand from a cable
company that the fcc would have jurisdiction and download of a video from a top provider like netflix? anybody can chime in. [inaudible] >> can we come up with a proposition where we have some common sense mergers with one regulator? >> i am not sure that is the answer. the fcc and ftc have worked well together for 20 years in complementary jurisdiction to make sure the expertise and experience that different at each agency brings to the table in forms solutions that get the balance right between taking account of impact on the economy and protecting values like privacy. >> and self regulation, can you please tell the committee whether the ftc used self
regulation in other contexts to protect consumers and what role the fcc believes such regulation should have in protecting online privacy? >> we believe it could play a key role. the ftc alone cannot undertake the efforts necessary that consumers have basic protections. provided there is accountability mechanism and enforcement mechanism and we believe the fcc ought to provide that. >> i see the clock is going up. i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair recognizes mr. kensi e kensing kensinger. [inaudible] >> please check your microphone.
thank you. >> about time. thank you. thank you for coming out. appreciate it. the explosive expansion and online marketing and tracking over the last few years has been unprecedented. from 2010-2014 it will grow $2.6 billion from one$.3 billion in 2010. the consumer who uses free services, and extend the value of behavior advertising and the effect is having on this country's economic growth and job creation. any privacy legislation must fully contend with the implications of what slower growth will have on our economy and the service provided to the consumer. privacy legislation could cost
the industry $623 million in growth if legislation imposes limits on online tracking. i am keenly aware of the decisions we make in this committee will impact the question of whether privacy is still a right in this country. the accelerated accumulation of aggregated data over the last few years is troubling for many consumers. one important action is to determine what type of information is aggregated. a few companies control sensitive health information and my shoe size and as a consumer am allowed to know what information is stored about me. these are important issues i believe we need to consider when drafting privacy legislation. some of these may be asked in a different way but i ask the first question of commissioner ramirez. what impact will do not track legislation have on free internet service itself? >> it depends on how the
mechanism is implemented. what the fcc has done is outline what it considers the core elements any such mechanism ought to have in order to assure protection for consumers and allow them to have choice. the emphasis is on choice. i don't believe -- i believe a mechanism can be constructed which i call an immediate option which allows consumers to have choice on what advertising they receive. that system would benefit consumers and industry. >> to walt three of you. do you believe consumers have a right to know as far as what information is contained in the online and offline space and how we determine what is private and what is not? this may have been addressed. do consumers have the right to know and how do we determine what should be private and what
shouldn't? >> the fair information practices should be incorporated, this notion of consumers knowing what is collected about them and how it is going to be used. as a broader point specific regulation about how that is done is not something we propose either to congress or regulatory agency. we see the benefits. this goes to your question about the cost of this legislation or regulation on business. is vitally important to give industry the opportunity to take the principal and create the voluntary codes of conduct they will commit to live by without sacrificing innovation or costing them the dollars that regulation might impose on them. >> i agree. >> are we all in agreement?
do we know the amount of data companies are collecting? do we know how that is being collected? that is pretty basic. >> i didn't quite -- >> do we know the amount of data companies are collecting and do we know -- >> i can't quantify what is taking place but information is being compiled and there are significant concern. the hypothetical used in my opening statement highlights how information can be used and it is not speculation happening today. >> i appreciate everybody's patience and everyone spending some time with us and i look forward to continuing. i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. rush has asked for a single round of a question and we agreed to allow mr. rush to ask one more question before we
conclude. >> i want to thank you for your indulgence with these witnesses. this morning and this afternoon it has been asked over and over, what harm is a consumer website or social network knows about my personal habits and my private life and today's testimony references made to broadband's positive effect on job creation. so many americans are unemployed. other issues we are overlooking regarding privacy safeguards and making more difficult for americans to obtain employment?
have you heard complaints from the public suggesting efforts to obtain have somehow been hampering or harmed privacy related -- >> a number of these matters the agency has brought shows a failing in regard to basic privacy protection and this was in the written testimony. in addition to that survey after survey shows consumers are concerned about how their information is used. there is evidence that supports the idea that additional privacy protection is needed. >> mr. genachowski, you want to comment on this particular matter? >> the relationship between what
happens in the privacy arena and achieving economic job-creating potential of the internet really are related. being very thoughtful about that is important. i mentioned the relationship between trust of the internet and increase in broadband adoption in a world where almost all job postings are on line. you are raising an important set of sensitivities that need to be carefully considered in this area. >> thank you. an honest point i want to reiterate in terms of the extensive deliberations put into this as we move forward. the first in a series of privacy hearings we will be holding this year and i look forward to continued discussions and how to balance these needs everyone has brought up. is clear to me that personal data is the gold rush of our
times. i would like to thank commissioner ramirez peters the referred to a statement by fellow commissioner rush with separate views on internet privacy and shares of minority staff and with unanimous consent it will be included in the record. without objection so ordered. i would like to thank my colleagues for their participation and thank the ranking members on both subcommittees. i would like to wish joe barton good luck at his baseball game. if you are interested i remind members they have ten business days to have questions for the records and respond to any question they receive and thank our panelists for your time today. the hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> the topic of debt negotiations came up on the house floor as members were wrapping up during a colloquy between eric cantor and minority leader steady player. this is about 25 minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for his information. is my understanding that we will be meeting on monday and voting on monday at 6:30 rather than commencing on tuesday at 6:30. the gentleman has pointed out that is to accommodate the challenge that confronts us in the crisis we have been put in with reference to assuring america does not default on its
bills and we continue to pursue efforts to bring the deficit down and the debt under control. i say to my friends it is late. we have on numerous occasions both the gentleman and i have voted in the past to extend the debt limit so america can pay the bills that it has incurred. the gentleman also notes that a piece of legislation was brought to the floor to in short when we pay our bills and was brought to the floor with the express intention by the chairman ways and means committee that it be defeated and was defeated and members voted against it all vote half of my members voted to make sure we pay our bills so that we do not get to this position. the gentleman and i have been
involved in efforts to reach agreement with the president, the senate and ourselves on both sides of the aisle so that we could not only provide for america paying its bills which if it doesn't will have very serious consequences to every household in america. every 401(k), pension program in america. the gentleman and i agree and everyone at the table, the president agreed allowing america to default on its bills was not something any of us believe was a policy that was appropriate. i say to my friend the cut, cap and balance act we have been confronted with this challenge for a long period of time. it was my understanding you were going to bring to the floor next
week a balanced budget amendment which was announced and which i thought was coming and we told our members was coming. you have substituted for that the cuts, cap and balance act. there is no text for that act available at this time. is that accurate? am i correct there is no text yet available for that bill? >> i thank the gentleman. i would say to the gentleman that the bill is currently being drafted and will be posted on line later this evening consistent with our three day layover requirement. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his, and. as the gentleman pointed out this crisis has been known to was for over five or six months that we were going to confront
this. 9 understand in the cuts, cap and balance pledgei understand and balance pledge that has been put forward -- the pledge says the people who sign the pledge whatever side they are on our going to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions are met. substantial cuts in spending next year and thereafter seems to me we passed a budget through this house that does that. doesn't reach balance until 30 years from now. secondly it says as a condition voting for that extension that spending caps put federal spending on the path to balanced budget. we have had discussions in the
white house on caps and what they apply to as percentage of gdp or absolute caps in spending which escalate denigration of the ability to deliver service over the years depending on the flexibility incorporated i have seen the legislation. and third, a balanced congressional pact and not mere support. some people on this floor have signed this agreement so i presume they will not vote to make sure america pays its bills on august 3rd. congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution but only if it includes spending limitations and supermajority for raising taxes and balancing revenue and expenses. i presume that requirement will have to come according to this
pledge to get votes included in this pet, cap and balance requirement. does the gentleman believe the second two at least one could argue we have already done the first in making substantial cuts and we discussed agreeing on making substantial cuts but the second two conditions cannot possibly be met between now and august 2nd. i yield. >> mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman as he heard me say before on those meetings and on this floor, i don't want to past august 2nd without increasing the debt. i as well as the gentleman understand there's a lot of uncertainty if that were to happen, lot of risk associated with that, arrest i am not
willing to take but to the gentleman's suggestion that it is imperative that we do that above all else i would add to that it is imperative we demonstrate we can arrive at meaningful solutions to the current fiscal crisis the country is facing. that is what the cut, cap and balance act tries to achieve. it offers a way for us to cut spending in a meaningful way this year and throughout the budget window. it also suggests ways to and force discretionary levels so congress can begin to do what all of us would like to see us do which is stop spending money we don't have.
the cut, cap and balance act also provides a cap on total spending levels recommended in our budget resolution. these levels spending as a share of gdp and it provides lastly for insuring that even be on ten years we can get back to balance. that is what the people in the country want. the gentleman shares with me a desire to manage the situation. are am hopeful the gentleman and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at this legislation. it will be posted on line to comply with our three day layover requirement about adequate notice to the public. i yield back. >> i am not sure you answered my question with respect to
conditions to -- 2 and 3 of the cuts, cap and balance pledge. i haven't read legislation. not sure what is in the legislation. i thank the gentleman for his observation that we need a meaningful and i would say robust addressing of the problem that confronts us. as you know, as we discussed it at the white house for four days now from sunday night through last night, the president of the united states has been indicating that we need what he calls a grand design along the lines that have been suggested by two of the commissions which on a bipartisan basis recommended a grand design. that brandon design would have
reached $4 trillion in deficit reduction and debt reduction and that is a figure close to the budget that was passed through this house. i might say to the gentleman that it is my understanding that the cut, cap and balance might be closer to the r f c numbers than your budget number that was passed. that number i referred to was the amendment that was defeated on this floor by one vote. but i would say to the gentleman that the president wants to do a grand design to reduce the deficit not by $1 trillion or $3 trillion but $4 trillion. there was a group in which the gentleman participated. there were other discussions between the speaker and the
president all looking at achieving large deficit reduction. the gentleman at some point in time decided that was not something he wanted to continue working on and suggested it be pushed up to the line and it was. the president was for a grand design. leader of the senate mr. reed was for that. i was for it. the vice president was for it. but unfortunately we couldn't proceed on that discussion. in a successful way at least. because the gentleman observed and his colleagues observed that as long as their revenues attached to that it wouldn't be acceptable to your side of the aisle. notwithstanding that every bi-partisan commission that
dealt with this issue indicated it needs to be a balanced package, it needed to include substantial cuts and needed to deal with discretionary spending, defense spending and entitlement spending and tax expenditures. the gentleman says we want to balance revenues with expenditures. the problem is you keep cutting revenues you will be chasing yourself down. obviously you want to bring revenue rates down. i hope we can do that but if we bring them down to a place where we don't have the money to pay for what we buy which is what happened in this past decade that we can be confronted with the surge to ration the gentleman wants to avoid which is raising the debt limit. what we have done in the last ten years is to buy more than we could afford so we have made that.
that is why the gentleman voted for extending debt limits and what i voted for it. i tell the gentleman i have a gallup poll that says 74% of republicans agree responsible deficit reduction plan should include tax increases and spending cuts and 77% of independents believe the plan should include a mix of revenue and spending cuts. i say that so i can elicit from the gentleman i know there is sentiment on your side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle and you know the president of the united states knows this as well. we have an opportunity, a critical time in our history when we have the making of a bipartisan agreement. creation of bipartisan consensus that will move us in the
direction that you and i know we have to move and what is holding us up as i understand it is your side believes 77% of independents and 74% of republicans are not correct. revenue should not be part of this package. we agree and have agreed spending cuts need to be part of it. i ask the gentleman is there any possibility that these 74% of republicans are correct that if we are going to have a successful packaging will be because it is balanced? my view is if we do this it is going to help create jobs. we haven't done jobs bills in this congress. we believe the only jobs built so far was the patent bill. you will talk about all these bills you did but we don't think
because you put jobs in the title it makes it a jobs bill. the fact of the matter is if we can create confidence in the markets, if we can create confidence that we can deal with our fiscal situation in a responsible bipartisan way it will have an extraordinarily positive effect on every household in america. confidence of america that we can work together in a bipartisan way and stabilize the markets and provide paying our bills and bring our deficit and debt down. i asked my friend again does he believe there's a possibility that we can reach a balanced agreement on what is called a grand design along with bipartisan commission's recommendations? >> the gentleman yields. >> i yield to my friend.
>> first of all regarding the gentleman's discussion about what happened at the white house this weekend might insistence that the president's statements in that meeting because we don't know what the details were of his proposal, my insistence was consistent with our speakers that will not raise taxes. that is why that construct doesn't work. we don't have the from that side of the aisle and i am not supportive of raising taxes on people who are trying to make it right now and can't. i would say to the gentleman when he refers to other groups that are out there all of whom he says suggests we need to raise taxes what the gentleman is talking about is how to produce more revenue. we believe you produce more
revenue by having growth in our economy. we don't believe you promote growth in the economy by cranking up the government spending machine, by taking money from people who earn it, watching it for washington bureaucracy and sending it back out. we don't believe that. we believe growth is created through investment, through hard work and the private sector. by entrepreneurs, small business men and women. people who want to succeed but want to earn their success and are not waiting for government to grant it to them. if the aim is for us to create more revenue one word in response is growth. i would say to the gentleman as far as reference to the gallup poll when he says overwhelmingly people in this country want taxes raised as part of the
so-called solution to our problem -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield when i am finished. to the gentleman's suggestion that that is where the american public is, i disagree. i haven't talked to anybody when we have unemployment over 9% officially when people are out of work and can't find a job, small business people are having trouble keeping the lights on, i don't talk to anybody who says please raise my taxes. that is what we should be focused on, was hard working people of this country who want a job, who want to see this economy return to growth. they are the ones who understand that it is cutting taxes, it is cutting the overly burdensome regulatory system in this town
that will bring back middle-class jobs. to the gentleman's suggestion that somehow we have not been talking about jobs in this institution, it is not surprising to him that i disagree with that. i say to the gentleman week after week we brought bills to the floor that deal with our fiscal situation that cuts spending because we have got to address that just like people address in their homes, families and businesses. we have numerous bills on the floor that goes to the root of the cause of uncertainty in the business community in this country and that is washington's overly aggressive and burdensome regulatory reach. we have got to get back to a growth posture, mr. speaker. that means pet spending, lower taxes and implement a balanced and sensible pro-growth
regulatory system as well as finally hopefully returning to a monetary policy that promotes a strong dollar and i yield back. >> thank you for yielding back. i don't think anybody wants their taxes raised including me. i would like to have all the prices of things are by cutting in half, 50% off sale. i like using my credit card. it is so much easier which is why credit cards encourage the economy but we know what happens when you use your credit card. at some point you get a bill. the people who sold you the bill or loan you the money expect you to pay them. i will tell my friend i understand what he is saying. we have just come through
arguably the worst recession since the great depression. it was consistent with economic policies that started in december of 2007 when we lost eight million jobs but the gentleman continues to say he wants to have policies which were policies to grow the economy. expand jobs, have those folks that you talk about do well. the gentleman misrepresents our position i want to make clear. we are not for asking people trying to make it in america, we are not for asking those who are struggling in america. we are not asking for those who rely on social security. we are not asking for those who rely on their medicare benefits to pave the burden of the
spending we have been involved in over the last decade which took us from $5.6 trillion of debt to $10 trillion of debt. we are not asking for those struggling americans which the gentleman raises as the specter of those -- we are asking for those who have done extraordinarily well over the last decade, who have made millions. year over the last decade. some billions over the last decade. oil companies making the biggest profit they ever made. and others to pay a little more so we can stabilize the finances of america. so don't represent it is democrats asking those struggling small business people. we are not doing that. or those struggling working people in america who have been
stuck in the mud under the economic policies that were pursued consistent with the 2001, and 2003 economic programs which has seen a disparity between working people and the wealthiest people in america. we can continue on that path and put on the backs of those struggling people you talk about the responsibility to pay for things or we can have a fair and balanced program. that is what the subject will present. they don't want their taxes raised. they want a fair and balanced obligation. fair and balanced participation and contribution to pay the debt of this country that we have incurred. we are not all responsible. on our side of the aisle as you well know this deficit was
increased by 90% under the bush economic policy. it was about half. that is not the issue. the debt went up and we have to pay it. we believe not paying is not an option. chamber of commerce says clearly that they urge all of us that it is critical u.s. government not default on its fiscal obligations and the president of the united states and our side has said we don't want to do that. so let's ask all of us to come to the table and those who can't afford it ought not to be asked. but those who can, those who can should be asked to do so. not to penalize them but to say we are all in this together. those who are best of america, corp. like the oil companies
getting subsidies at this point in time who said they didn't need subsidies. if oil was $55 a barrel they testified in congress some time ago to that fact. it has been twice that and we are still giving them subsidies. we are just saying that doesn't make sense. that is what that 77% of independents are saying. they're not saying they want taxes raised. they are saying we ought to pay our bills and we ought to have fair participation by all americans in meeting this crisis that confronts us and i would hope over the next three weeks we get to a place we come together in a bipartisan way and ask all of us to participate. those who can can help us confront this deficit and balance our budget and those who
can't but who have worked hard to make themselves and their families live the quality of life will help them out and stabilize the economy and grow jobs and have a better country. i hope we can do that and are look forward to it. i don't know that this pet, cap and balance will get us there but we won't get there under those provisions between now and august 2nd and the gentleman knows that and our hope he has some other thought in mind, some other plan in mind. there have been a number of plans. the president spoke about his plan that was rejected. the gentleman says it was specifically line by line. it was rejected before we